• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Grays Inn Road Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

77 Grays Inn Road, Holborn, London, WC1X 8TS (020) 7405 9360

Provided and run by:
Grays Inn Road Medical Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

7 June 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focussed inspection on 7 June 2016. This was to follow up our comprehensive inspection of the practice on 29 September 2015, when we found a breach of legal requirements, relating to the safe management of vaccines. We served a requirement notice relating to the breach. The practice’s overall rating had been good; the individual rating for providing safe services was requires improvement.

Following the inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what it would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulations 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, relating to Safe care and treatment.

We undertook this focussed inspection on 7 June 2016 to check that it had implemented its action plan and to confirm that it now met the legal requirements. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and to the improvements needed to provide a responsive service. We found that the practice had taken appropriate action to meet the requirements of the notice and have amended the practice’s rating for providing safe services to good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Gray’s Inn Road Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on the 29 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows

  • Data showed patient outcomes were above average.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements. Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not always implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe.

  • We noted that some areas of the premises and equipment had not been sufficiently cleaned. Although vaccine fridge temperatures were monitored, there was no record of any action taken on two occasions when the recommended range was exceeded.
  • Some staff were overdue refresher training in safeguarding and no staff had received training at the practice in chaperoning duties. The practice informed us during the process for checking the factual accuracy of the draft inspection report that safeguarding training had been booked for December 2015 and that chaperone training had been provided in November 2015.
  • The practice’s emergency equipment was not suitably located and stored and not all staff knew where it was kept.

Although some clinical audits had been carried out, these had not been repeated to monitor improvement in performance to improve patient outcomes. Emergency appointments were available on the day they were requested, but some patients said that they sometimes had to wait a long time for non-urgent appointments.

Importantly, the provider must

  • Ensure that all areas of the premises and equipment are suitably cleaned.
  • Ensure that staff are aware of the action to take if the vaccine fridge exceeds the recommended temperature range.

In addition, the provider should

  • Ensure that staff receive training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs are identified and planned.
  • Review the location and storage of emergency equipment and ensure that all staff know its whereabouts.
  • Ensure clinical audit cycles are completed to help monitor the service and identify where improvements may be made.
  • Continue to work on improving the appointments system so that patients have appropriate access to the service.

Professor Steve Field

CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 September 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection the Gray's Inn Medical Practice employed three GPs, one of them was a locum doctor. There were also one nurse, a practice manager, clerical and administrative staff and reception staff, some of whom worked part time. The practice provided services to approximately 3700 people.

During our inspection patients told us that their care and treatments needs were met. They felt respected and were mostly happy with the quality of the service provided.

One patient told us that 'the staff are polite' and that the surgery 'is always clean.' Another person told us 'the doctor is very good' but said that 'on one occasion I was waiting [to see a doctor] for nearly two hours.' Some patients told us that they were not always able to book appointments at the time which was convenient to them.

We found that treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patients'' safety and welfare. Staff working at the surgery were suitably qualified and they were supported in their job.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and took account of patients' comments. The provider had polices and protocols in place which allowed to address complaints appropriately.

We found that patients' records were accurate and fit for purpose.